How much jail time for women who've had abortions?

RainDog wrote:

Oh please, please, please, please let there be a concerted conservative effort to push for criminal charges. Oh please, please let CorporateHero/BarroomWhore/Corp....whatever become the new model of conservative America. Is it really too much to ask?

America definitely identifies more with my conservatism than your liberal pinko b.s.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

And that's why abortion is legal and we never see any large scale protests against it, I guess.

Yeah, and I guess that's why they have to put things like gay marriage bans on an actual ballot these days - rather than just taking it as a foregone conclusion like they did 20 years ago.

The, um - ahem - "sad" fact is, the country has been getting more and more socially liberal since its inception. And, looking at the major party candidates on both sides - a bit more fiscally liberal as well.

CorporateWhore wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Life

"The first March for Life was held on the West Steps of the Capitol, with an estimated 20,000 supporters in attendance. [1] In recent years the number of marchers has been estimated at around 100,000 to 300,000 each year,[citation needed] considered the most attended annual march in Washington D.C.[2]"

That is pretty big, true enough. But you see protests against the war in every large city and much more frequently with each passing year...when the majority of people are against something you'll see it everywhere...and no, I don't mean a few people gathered at the local clinics.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

That is pretty big, true enough. But you see protests against the war in every large city and much more frequently with each passing year...when the majority of people are against something you'll see it everywhere...and no, I don't mean a few people gathered at the local clinics.

In my opinion, protesting doesn't indicate public opinion at all. It attracts the most intense advocates of that position.

March for Life people are generally pretty humble and tranquil during the March for Life, mainly because the thing they're protesting is so sobering. 40 million babies isn't something you get into a frenzy over.

CorporateWhore wrote:

Christians have always opposed abortion. That's nothing new. Robertson et al made it a political movement because evangelicals had no cohesive movement back then.

Nothing wrong with organizing.

It's very easy to say that you want to let the voters speak now. Back in 1973, we didn't have that opportunity. After 25 years of legal abortion, plenty of voters have been influenced by a pro-choice culture and think it is normal. Had they grown up in a society where abortion was illegal, many would have different views.

A majority of the states had laws on the books already that addressed abortion. The voters HAD spoken and leftist judges took that right from them.

Honest question. You know that if abortion was illegal, people would still do it, in much more dangerous ways. Would you do anything to combat that?

CorporateWhore wrote:

Yeah sure. Make it illegal to do abortion in dangerous ways too. Safe or dangerous, abortion would occur far less if it were illegal.

Put people in jail for a long time if they perform an abortion or have one performed.

What about cases where the mother is in danger, or in cases of rape?

RainDog wrote:

Curious how that happens, considering that of the nine Justices sitting on the bench when Roe was decided, six were appointed by Republicans.

Roe v. Wade had a vote split of 7-2. Five of those Republican Justices ruled in favor of legal abortion. Of the two that dissented, one was appointed by JFK.

In fact, the Supreme Court has been mostly Republican since, yet still Roe v. Wade is considered established law.

Ah well. I suppose as long as Republicans have something to run on, it's O.K. that nothing's really done about it.

I don't know what the fuck yer talking about. Justices are neither Republican nor Democrat, but conservative or liberal. The person who appointed them doesn't matter as we've seen with Souter and O'Connor.

Stealth nominees have frequently been wolves in sheep's clothing.

God will judge them too.

I really don't see why anyone would have such a hard time with this question. I'd say if the woman chooses an abortion once it has been outlawed, then she should serve the same sentence as any other murderer. Or perhaps, since she herself does not actually kill the baby it should be conspiracy to commit murder.
I have absolutely no problem with putting the woman who has an abortion on the same level as someone who hires a hitman to kill his or her neighbour, and putting the doctor who performs the abortion on the same level as a hitman. It seems pretty simple to me.

The ONLY scenario in which I don't believe abortion should be outlawed at all is if the mother's life is at serious risk. I still don't necessarily agree with abortion even then, since it's like somebody saying "well, it's either me or some other (innocent) person who must die, so I choose for the other person to die". Seems pretty selfish to me, and who is any one person to say that one life (even his or her own) is more valuable than that of another? HOWEVER, by that same reasoning, who are we as a society or the government, to say that one life (the baby's) is more valuable than another (the mother's)? Therefore, it should not be the right of anyone else to essentially hand out a death sentence to a woman in order to save the life of her child. This is THE ONLY situation in which I do believe the woman should have the right to choose, regardless of whether or not her choice is morally right or wrong.